• Appaloosa
    +5

    FTA-"Imposing a cost on carbon is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and keep global temperatures within the targets of the Paris climate agreement1. If heavy emitters must pay the most, they will shift to cleaner practices."

    Wishful thinking. The only people who will pay are consumers and prices will never go down, I'm a hard core yellow vest when it comes to this money grabbing philosophy.

    • AdelleChattre (edited 5 years ago)
      +6

      Can you hear that? What's that ticking sound?

      • Appaloosa
        +8

        And adding another tax just makes you poorer for the apocalypse. My humble opinion, is that it should be looked at as a national security issue....create a race to the moon mentality. That event alone drove thousands of practical inventions. Taxing existing infrastructure will not work, its not bold, its not even giving people an option....and the energy companies will pass it on....because you cant go anywhere else.

        • AdelleChattre (edited 5 years ago)
          +3

          Wishful thinking.

          Fair play. Right up front, let's admit the obvious. We're too late.

          The only people who will pay are consumers and prices will never go down

          If we're honest enough to face feedback loops like boiling methane in the permafrost contributing to more boiling methane in the permafrost, we can deal with the consequences of carbon taxes.

          it should be looked at as a national security issue

          On the one hand you have uninhabitable Earth in our near-future. On the other you have the concern that a tax on carbon emissions from private jets and luxury yachts is theft.

          create a race to the moon mentality

          Right, because if you want something done, do it as a large, government program. As basic research. With no funding. Maybe that is the best way to get to a dead world.

          Taxing existing infrastructure will not work

          Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a real cost to carbon emissions. One we pay in terms of the survival of life as we know it on Earth. Carbon taxes would put that cost on balance sheets. What else would?

          its not bold

          Given the stakes and the power of the resistance to it, yes, it is.

          its not even giving people an option

          I may be part of the problem, just like anyone else, but then this isn't up to me. I don't have an option as it is. Not like some do.

          the energy companies will pass it on

          That's how economics works.

          because you cant go anywhere else

          You've hit the nail on the head.